A federal judge in California has ruled that an Arizona man whose wife and two children were severely mentally ill and living on Social Security disability benefits was entitled to a check for $200 on his behalf.
In his ruling, Judge Robert Stoddart in San Francisco said the man’s wife was “not disabled or incapacitated,” and the couple “were not living in the United States or otherwise legally residing in the state of California.”
Stoddart said he didn’t have to consider the fact that the woman’s disabilities could make it difficult for her to pay.
He also said the couple was in a medically stable and medically independent environment that did not result in the couple’s “unstable and medically incompetent living conditions.”
The ruling came in a case involving a man who had been receiving Social Security Disability Insurance for more than three decades, even though he has never worked.
The man had filed a claim against his wife and children in 2015 because his wife was mentally ill, the judge said in his ruling.
Stoddard ruled that the man had been living in California for at least 10 years before the couple filed the claim.
He also noted that the couple had two other children and were both on Social Service Disability Insurance.
He noted that they also did not have any other income or assets.
The case was brought by the couple after the woman had died.
The judge found that the husband owed the couple $20,000 in disability benefits for his wife’s mental illness and for his children’s disability.
The judge also found that he owed the woman more than $4,000 because he did not pay the couple a $200 lump sum for their disability.
Struck by the woman, the man filed a petition for a writ of mandate, which allows him to force a judge to enforce the laws of the state in his case.
Stood in court Thursday and was told by an attorney that he was allowed to make the request, said lawyer Matthew Zappala, who represented the couple.
Zappala said the ruling is a major victory for the couple and for people like them.
It’s about giving them a way to be able to make a claim and get the benefit, he said.
“They have been through this before,” Zappas said.
“It’s the best case we’ve seen.”